When the Home Office seek to unfairly deny a man his entitlement to British citizenship and an Immigration Judge invokes justice

It might be difficult to imagine a scenario where a person, born in the United Kingdom 53year ago, following a change of name is issued a British passport (with the passport office fully aware of the former name), but only for the home office to subsequently take deportation action against him years later, on the basis that he is not British.

 

But that is exactly what the Home Office sought to do to a man who was born in the UK  in the early   60’s to parents of Nigerian origin,  who were residing in the UK at that time.

 

Continue reading

Overstayer Or Failed Asylum Seeker in the UK? Why You Shouldn’t Pack Your Bags Just Yet

luggage-airport-300x200Failed asylum seekers and those without leave to remain in the UK, may feel that they have no option but to  leave the  UK,  where there seems no way of regularising their stay.

 

“Home Is Best”, they say, however, prior to taking such steps, it is worth while pausing to review  circumstances, as  adult claimants or children without leave in the UK have several options open to them having regard to  several  provisions of UK law,   which they can appropriately avail themselves  in order to seek to  regularise their stay in the UK.

 

Continue reading

After Hesham Ali: Unrepresented Claimant With UK Resident Children Successfully Resists Deportation In Court Of Appeal

Following a long line of recent negative decisions in the Court of Appeal in cases such as The Secretary of State for the Home Department v AJ (Zimbabwe) [2016] EWCA Civ 1012,  the newly notified case of Quarey, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rev 1) [2017] EWCA Civ 47 is a much welcome  decision  in relation  to potential deportees  with children resident in the UK.

 

Continue reading

Paposhvili ECHR: An Easing of The UK Courts Restrictive Approach To Article 3 Medical Condition Cases?

medicalTHE PROBLEM AND THE COURT’S APPROACH IN PAPOSHVILI v BELGIUM : ECHR 13 Dec 2016

 

The Court itself  in Paposhvili noted that it had applied the case-law established in N. v. the United Kingdom in declaring inadmissible, as being manifestly ill-founded, numerous applications raising similar issues, concerning claimants  who were HIV positive  or who suffered from other serious physical illnesses or mental illnesses. It  was noted that several judgments had applied this case-law to the removal of seriously ill persons whose condition was under control as the result of medication administered in the Contracting State concerned, and who were fit to travel.

The Court considered from a review of the case-law that the application of Article 3 of the Convention only in cases where the person facing expulsion is close to death, which has been its practice since the judgment in N. v. the United Kingdom, has deprived aliens who are seriously ill, but whose condition is less critical, of the benefit of that provision. As a corollary to this, the case-law subsequent to N. v. the United Kingdom has not provided more detailed guidance regarding the “very exceptional cases” referred to in N. v. the United Kingdom, other than the case contemplated in D. v. the United Kingdom.

 

The Court observed that there were important issues at stake in Paposhvili notably concerning the expulsion of aliens who are seriously ill. Thus, the impact of the  case went  beyond the particular situation of the applicant.

 

In Paposhvili, it was argued among other  issues,  that the present case afforded a unique opportunity to depart from the excessively restrictive approach adopted by the Court in N. v. the United Kingdom with regard to the expulsion of persons suffering from serious illness.

 

Continue reading

New Zimbabwe Home Office Policy Note 2017: Protestors, Demonstrators and Social Media Resistance Focused

It had been obvious for at least two years,  that the Country Information Report of  October 2014  no longer  reflected the up-to-date  political situation for the purposes  of considering  asylum  claims from Zimbabweans.  My  blog post,  Zimbabwean Asylum Claimants And The New Political Movement: Are The Home Office & Tribunal “Getting it?”  of 24 August 2016, summarized the position in its opening  paragraph as follows:

 

There clearly is a new protest political movement emerging   in Zimbabwe  being  propelled substantially  by  social media. Where this continues  in the long term ( if not  suppressed ),  and where  claimants associated with such movements seek protection in the UK,  then   current rigid   UK  asylum country  guidance caselaw, CM (EM country guidance; disclosure) Zimbabwe CG [2013] UKUT 59 (IAC),   becomes increasingly  redundant……………. Clearly, the  guidance  in CM is  largely  inapplicable  and unsuited to claimants associated with the new movement(s)  seeking protection in the UK……The  Home Office and the Tribunal need to appreciate  that  it  is now no longer simply   just about  being a member of the  MDC and having a political  profile  associated with said party, nor just about war  veterans and militia bashing the opposition. Some new country guidance caselaw may be in order in an appropriate case if  the current Zimbabwean  regime remains in power and if  the  current movement continues”.

Continue reading